To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.

Cyclometh:Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.

Stop bringing gun grabbing up as an example. Use higher income taxes, gay marriage for all, free abortions, but not gun grabbing. There are a lot of democrat voters who like their guns and any ban is unconstitutional anyways.

What a pointless statistic. Everyone is always unhappy with Washington, D.C. No matter who you are or what you want from your government, there's always someone in Washington, D.C. loudly promoting the contrary point of view.

Cyclometh:Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.

Welcome to the modern legislative process. It may not be right, but it's now accepted and expected. The Tea Party has poisoned the Republican Party. The Tea Party message is "Do what we want or we'll bury you in the next election". And the Tea Party has the power to do exactly that. They are a powerful political machine.Years and years of rhetoric against the AHA has led to this point. There was never a Plan B for this shutdown because republicans didn't need one. All they needed to do was show they would stand up to the president at every turn and fight this healthcare legislation. The people that voted for these pricks in the past will now continue to vote for them. I hate to tell you, but the precedent has already been set.

Phil McKraken:Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?

Because, sure, your demands have already led you to get the million in unmarked bills and the helicopter ride to freedom. But you've still got the hostages at gunpoint...why not push for them to throw a free pony into the deal? Surely, SWAT won't call your bluff, right?

Cyclometh:vpb: Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.

I think until the 17th. Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

while i don't necessarily disagree IMO the hit to the economy would doom the republicans even in solid red districts. while fox, free republic and redstate would spin like crazy the fact that it was republicans farkng up everything couldn't be ignored.

there their theyre:Stop bringing gun grabbing up as an example. Use higher income taxes, gay marriage for all, free abortions, but not gun grabbing. There are a lot of democrat voters who like their guns and any ban is unconstitutional anyways.

Wait, you mean I shouldn't use an example of one tiny faction of Congress trying to take something that the majority of Americans support, is already settled law, has passed Constitutional muster and doesn't even have the support of the rest of their own party?

Cyclometh:I think until the 17th. Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them. The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

DubyaHater:I hate to tell you, but the precedent has already been set.

No, it hasn't. It will only be set if the Senate and the POTUS cave. If they hold the line, the GOP will be left holding the bag on this. And the Tea Party, as powerful as they are, aren't immune to the forces of history. Sweeping political changes have run across this country before and they will again. The Tea Party isn't the endgame of political philosophy, and the longer this drags on the more likely it is they'll find themselves helpless in the next election.

They're making themselves irrelevant by showing everyone who is not insane how petulant, stupid and childish they are. The American public may be fickle, but we definitely don't like whiners.

vpb:Cyclometh: I think until the 17th. Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them. The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

vpb:Cyclometh: I think until the 17th. Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them. The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

I think that's a reasonable scenario, but the POTUS will want to avoid impeachment.

Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."

Cyclometh:vpb: Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.

I think until the 17th. Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

Let me understand this...

When this bs hits the fanThe President has to take the retards hands off the wheel before we go off the cliffAnd he will be formally impeached, so they can tell the rubes back home they did something or another

I just saw a rep from Texas on the House floor make the argument that the Gingrich shutdown worked out amazingly well for the GOP and that they should hold strong here and not back down.

Yeah, this isn't ending soon. Best case scenario is the Democrats' plan to force the CR to the floor ends the shutdown over a week from now, and Boehner grows a pair and puts the debt ceiling to a vote against the Tea Party's wishes.

Cyclometh:I think that's a reasonable scenario, but the POTUS will want to avoid impeachment.

Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."

So would I, but I would wait until after the default or the eve of the default to do anything like that. I wouldn't worry about impeachment, all that means is that he is tried by the Senate where Dems are the majority.

un4gvn666:I'm pretty pissed off at congressional Republicans, and I have a Bank of America account.

/what? Their ATMs are convenient

FYI, if a credit union is a member of the Credit Union Network, then a member can use the ATMs of any other credit union in the network, with no ATM fees. And there are smartphone apps that will locate the nearest in-network ATM, no matter where in the country you are.

foo monkey:I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

The 14th is pretty clear. You cannot commit an act that calls into question the validity of the debt of the US. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does that. I'm not sure the President needs to punish them, but he could in theory issue an executive order that the Treasury will continue to service the debt. If he does THAT, impeachment is a foregone conclusion, but so is an acquittal by the Senate.

In the end, the fact that there is a debt ceiling at all is probably not Constitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment merely by existing.

vpb:Cyclometh: I think until the 17th. Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them. The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

At this point, the only successful shift they've been managing is their own out of politics and into civilian life. Nobody buys their little nonsense, and at this point it's become insulting of them to think they can outsmart people who have seen them playing these games to get some imaginary moral ground above the Democrats.

If they really want to go whole hog with the Clinton-Era nonsense, that will only hasten their power loss. Right now I'm seeing 2014 as being difficult simply because they're pissing off monied interests who are afraid of losing their cash because of this hissy fit by the ignorant that the Republican Policy created.

A coup would have to involve taking over or replacing the government. The US is pretty much immune to that. The question of whether the POTUS has the power to unilaterally bypass Congress on the debt ceiling has never been tested, but in the event that it were, the Senate would not vote to convict, nor would the SCOTUS be able to legitimately assert that the President violated the Constitution by upholding it.

Cyclometh:Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."

I keep reading people saying this, but ACA is only bringing affordable insurance to people. It will do nothing to lower healthcare costs. If anything, it will help enable even MORE people to lose their life savings paying for medical bills not covered by deductibles.

/I would have preferred single-payer instead of this insurance company feeding frenzy, but what do I know, I'm just a RINO according to some people.